JUDGE:	Balmford J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1, 4 & 5 June 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 August 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Riley v Racing Appeals Tribunal
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 259

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for review under section 3 of the Administrative Law Act 1978 of a decision of the Racing Appeals Tribunal which upheld the decision and penalty of the Stewards of the Victoria Racing Club – The applicant was convicted of breaching Rule 175(hh) of the Australian Rules of Racing and disqualified from racing for two years - procedural fairness - jurisdictional issues - the audi alteram partem rule - ostensible bias - where the Chairman of the Tribunal is a member of the Victoria Racing Club - how the rule as to apprehended bias is applicable to Tribunal proceedings - whether the principle of the right to silence applies in an alleged breach of the Rules of Racing – the peculiar characteristics of a Stewards’ inquiry.

Administrative Law Act 1978 – sections 2, 3
Australian Rules of Racing – Rule 175(hh)
Racing Act 1958 – section 83F, H, I, K, L, M, NA
Victoria Racing Club Rules – Rules 8B and 8D

Australian Football League v Carlton Football Club Ltd [1998] 2 VR 546
Brouillard v R (1985) 17 CCC (3^rd) 193
Builders Licensing Board v Sperway Constructions (Sydney) Pty Ltd (1976) 135 CLR 616
Calvin v Carr [1980] AC 574
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1
Ebner v Official Trustee (2000) 75 ALJR 277
Geelong Building Society v Encel [1996] 1 VR 594
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Norton v Long [1968] VR 221
Police Service Board v Morris (1985) 156 CLR 397
Pyneboard Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1983) 152 CLR 328
R v Brewer; Ex parte Renzella [1973] VR 375
R v Palmieri [1998] 1 VR 486
Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H (2000) 75 ALJR 982
Sellen v Gleeson & Ors (unreported, decided on 5 October 1989).
Sellen v The Victorian Amateur Turf Club (unreported, decided on 15 June 1988).
Sorby v The Commonwealth of Australia (1983) 152 CLR 281
Spurling v Development Underwriting (Vic.) Pty Ltd (1973) VR 1
University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) (1985) 59 ALJR 481
Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568
Vowell v Steele [1985] VR 133
Wajnberg v Raynor & Board of Works [1971] VR 665
Webb v R (1994) 181 CLR 41

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr Simon Gillespie-Jones with Mr Ivan Brewer	McHenry Foster
For the Secondnamed Respondent	Mr Jack Forrest QC with Mr David Beach	Minter Ellison

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

On 20 April 2001, on the application of the applicant, a Master made an order (“the Master’s Order”) pursuant to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Riley v Racing Appeals Tribunal

Details

AGLC: Riley v Racing Appeals Tribunal [2001] VSC 259
Case: [2001] VSC 259
Decision Date: 1 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Riley brought a challenge against the decision of the Racing Appeals Tribunal, seeking judicial review of the Tribunal's decision to uphold a penalty imposed by the Stewards of the Victoria Racing Club. Riley was disqualified from racing for two years following a conviction for a breach of Rule 175(hh) of the Australian Rules of Racing. The legal issues at the heart of the case were whether procedural fairness had been observed in the Tribunal's proceedings, and if there were any jurisdictional issues that could be grounds for quashing the Tribunal's decision. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Tribunal's Chairman, who was also a member of the Victoria Racing Club, could have been perceived as biased, and whether Riley had been denied the opportunity to be heard, as required by the audi alteram partem rule.

In assessing the arguments, the court considered the peculiar nature of Stewards' inquiries and the principles of natural justice that apply to such proceedings. It examined the principle of the right to silence and its application to alleged breaches of the Rules of Racing. The court also scrutinised the Tribunal's procedures to determine if they met the standards of procedural fairness and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. The court found that the Tribunal's process was fundamentally fair and did not breach any rules of natural justice. Furthermore, it held that the Tribunal's Chairman, despite being a member of the Racing Club, did not display any actual bias, and there was no apprehended bias that would invalidate the proceedings. The court also found that the right to silence did not apply in the context of a Stewards' inquiry, which is inherently different from a criminal trial.

Consequently, the court dismissed Riley's application for judicial review. The Tribunal's decision was affirmed, and Riley's two-year disqualification from racing remained in place. The court held that the Tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction, observed procedural fairness, and that there was no basis for the court to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.

Orders